RISK ASSESSMENT- Do we all agree?

Risk Assessment - Chapter 14-1, LaGreca (et all)
By Peter Lembessis
Risks! We are taking them every day and some times we don't even know. Since the Industrial Revolution, humans realized that certain areas of their every day living, work, environment, food, health involves some type of risk that needs a more precise assessment and calculation. Some might say the science of risk was developed to protect life, injuries to the public and to save money for the businesses. Not everything can be measured. Risk is based in the probability theory. Based on the risk assessment, business make important decisions with the outcome being profit or saving money where Governments look out for the good of the people. The need for risk-based standards was developed.
LaGreca uses the term quantitative to describe the process of using scientific principles to calculate quantitative estimates of risk. His four stages varies very little from other scientist based on the risk calculated. For examples William C. Blackman. Jr in his book "Basic Hazardous Waste Management" defines the four steps of risk assessment as; Toxicology Evaluation, Dose-response evaluation, Exposure assessment and risk characterization. There is no real difference between the two authors other than the Dose-response evaluation.
Where mostly scientists involved with Risk assessment agree generally on the principles, there are also some critics.
From the Internet site of Wikipedia on the article of Risk assessment I noticed some of the critics comments. " Barry Commoner and Brian Wynne as well as other critics have expressed concerns that risk assessment tends to be overly quantitative and reductive. They argue that risk assessments ignore qualitative differences among risks. Some charge that assessments may drop out important and non-quantifiable or inaccessible information, such as variations among the classes of people exposed to hazards. Furthermore , Commoner and O'Brien claim that quantitative approaches divert attention from precautionary measures. Others, like Nassim Nicholas Taleb consider risk managers little more that "blind users" of statistical tools and methods" The arguments on risk calculation and risk assessment exist since their inception and set the stage for government involvement. EPA and other regulatory agencies have , as it should , set risk -based standards based on legislature Acts. The standards are needed and used because of the court-imposed need to "show harm" when a standard is challenged and works as a referee between conflicting opinions on the subject.
Professor Blacman writes that "the courts can be expected to lend a sympathetic ear to pleas for rationality in standards, and risk-based standards, and some of the verdicts will be with us for years to come"
I agree
Peter Lembessis

References
LaGreca, MichaleD, Buckinham, Philip L., Evans, Jeffrey C. 2001. Hazardous Waste Management. chapter 14-1 Quantitative Risk Assesment
William C. Blackman. Jr. Basic Hazardous waste management, Second Edition, chapter 4, toxicology and the Standard -Setting Processes
Internet, Web site, Wikipedia, calculating risk
Commoner, Barry. O"Brien, Mary. Shrader-Frechette and Westra 1997
The Fourth Quadrant: Amap of the limits of Statistics (9.15.08) Nassim Taleb , an Edge Original Essay